More to consider. Apparently, the PM is not empowered to action Art 50, it must come from parliament. Am I right in believing more MP's are not in favour of exit than are? If so, it is not going to get through.

BTW, there is a brilliant vid here, based on the Monty Python. His final response had me in stitches.

More to consider. Apparently, the PM is not empowered to action Art 50, it must come from parliament. Am I right in believing more MP's are not in favour of exit than are? If so, it is not going to get through.

BTW, there is a brilliant vid here, based on the Monty Python. His final response had me in stitches.

Not from UK, but what is the point of such a non-binding referendum? Was Sottish ref also non-binding?

I don't believe, strictly speaking, either is/was binding. Basically a referendum is just an official opinion poll. But generally in a democratic society, if the population votes for something parliament will go ahead and enact it. I think that the law that allowed the Scottish IndyRef may have stated that it would go ahead if the vote was for Indy but I'm not too sure. I'm fairly sure that in the Brexit case as no new law had to be put on the books to call it, that this is purely advisory. But I'm not certain on this whole issue. It would be rather odd for something to go to referendum and then Parliament to go against that. I think perhaps it could be done but I'd also think that could be career suicide.

If invoking Article 50 requires an act of parliament, we could see MPs trying to block it. The SNP have the least (possibly - blocking kills their Indy plans so it depends what would be their true aim) to lose by trying to block, but 55 MPs isn't enough. It'd take, at the very least, a number of Tory MPs to rebel and that's assuming pretty much all of everyone non-Tory goes against it. I can't see many MPs being willing to block if their constituency voted in favour. Unless it was to somehow become clear the vote was a "mistake"

I think the UK should be split up on a town by town and city by city basis, so that everyone gets what they want.e.g. Derby could have a big fence around it, with a single entry point and armed guards keeping foreigners out, and if people from Derby want to go shopping in Nottingham, they have to get a visa first and then pay import duty on what ever they buy.

Also, now the Brexit campaigners have sorted out the foreigners, they can move on to other pressing issues such as anyone who hasn't got the right colour skin. Then maybe Muslims (or anyone who might be a Muslim), then perhaps gays, and finally focus on people with the wrong sort of attitude, strange sounding names, or any other characteristic that's not 100% British.

Ouch! Personally, I think the British are generally a very tolerant nation. I genuinely don’t believe that the majority of people who voted Brexit are inherently racist or xenophobic. And that’s been my personal experience of Brexiters too (I voted Remain). Agreed, the out ticket was often sold on a distasteful menu of negativity towards immigration, but I sincerely believe that the British as a whole do not have a problem with immigrants or immigration per se. It’s uncontrolled immigration that’s the problem. We are a small, overcrowded island with limited resources. Excessive EU migration will place extra burdens on our already stretched schools, hospitals & housing stock etc. Perhaps it’s these legitimate concerns regarding pressurised resources, rather than any pure, unadulterated hate for foreigners, that compelled many to vote out. And it’s worth remembering that Brexit did not only campaign about immigration. Perhaps their other arguments concerning EU bureaucracy, sovereignty or whatever, proved equally as influential for many. I was just reading an interesting article on why support for Brexit was so strong in certain areas. It highlighted Sunderland where 61% voted leave-despite being the recipients of generous EU grants and funding. The response of those interviewed in the article told a different story. It had nothing to do with racism or xenophobia but rather a feeling of disillusionment and near disenfranchisement. Those leave voters who were interviewed in the piece complained that the nation’s power, money & prestige were too concentrated in wealthy London. They felt unable to share in that prosperity and simply felt ignored by the Government and Westminster elite. Voting leave was their way of protesting against this. One interviewee described the referendum as an opportunity to “poke the eye” of Mr. Cameron! Well it certainly has achieved that! Let’s not fall into the trap of labeling the British or indeed Brexiters a bunch of nasty bigots for voting out. We can all appreciate a wider, more complex picture out there.

Unfortunately the actions of the few (probably more than just a few) reflect on the majority, which is why the rest of the world will view Britain as a bunch of bigoted, xenophobic racists - and hooligans.

The fact is migration (it goes both ways) has benefitted the economy, lowest unemployment in years and highest number of job vacancies since the year 2000, but benefits to the economy have not translated into a benefit for [all] the people. Nothing has been done to mitigate the social problems caused by the increase in immigration, there's been no investment in infrastructure in years, and there has been nothing meaningful done to help ensure migrants successfully integrate into society. Most immigrants are from outside the UK, so we could have taken steps to control overall net migration, but we chose not to because it might harm the economy - we can't even remove the 500k to 1M illegal immigrants.

People are blaming Europe for our own failings, and leaving the EU is not going to solve our problems, it's just going to make things worse - and nastier.

Anyway, Britain never really bought into the EU/Common Market in the first place.With the exception of free trade, successive governments have fought against just about every EU reform; open borders, free movements of people, single currency, labour reforms, etc., etc., and, judging by the turnout at European elections, the people have completely ignored it (nothing to do with us), until now. The only sectors that have engaged fully with the EU are British exporters, foreign (non-EU) companies, higher education, and anything to do with R&D - because they get huge grants.We failed Europe just as much as Europe failed us, and our governments (Labour and Conservative) failed the people.

There is a lot of anti-British feeling among Europe's political elite, and the press (at least from what I've seen in France) are stoking this up, but I think most ordinary people just feel generally sad about it and sorry for us. My wife was in the supermarket yesterday in Dinan (Brittany), and she got talking to the lady on the checkout (I think it was because she used a UK credit card), and the whole queue, including an American woman, all joined in to say how sorry they were and they hoped we could sort things out.

All the Expats I've spoken to in France are shocked, angry, and just generally devastated (the ones who have been here long enough are planning to apply for citizenship), and the Polish lady who runs our village shop simply can't believe it. Overnight we went from being part of something that, despite its' failing, had the best interests of the people at heart and was trying to improve society, to being a bunch of incompetent, dithering outsiders intent on wrecking everything - I'm embarrassed to be British now.

More to consider. Apparently, the PM is not empowered to action Art 50, it must come from parliament. Am I right in believing more MP's are not in favour of exit than are? If so, it is not going to get through.

BTW, there is a brilliant vid here, based on the Monty Python. His final response had me in stitches.

Germany and France now reportedly pushing forward with plans for a European Superstate with centralized economy, army etc...

How do we feel about that?

That has always been the aim of the EU, something the likes of Churchill wanted after the war, and I don't see why, in principal at least, it's a bad thing to aspire to. As with anything though it all comes down to the details and practicalities - plus having the support of the people.

UK membership of the EU has always been the only thing stopping the rest of the Europe moving forward with this plan, and if people in the UK aren't comfortable with the idea of being neighbour to another (nuclear) superpower, then they shouldn't have voted to leave.

Reason: England players were not in the right state of mind after Brexit.

It's now been confirmed that Brexit will take years later. England players have regretted not giving their best and will put in a better showing.

Unlike Brexit, I doubt the result with England's football team is going to be any different

No offense to English football fans, I'm one myself!

This also demonstrates the totally incorrect way that elections are viewed, as competitions to be won at all costs.

A football tournament is a competition, it's not a system for finding the best football team, it's a contest and as Iceland proved last night - or as Greece proved in 2004 - it doesn't mean the best team wins.

An election isn't Britain's Got Talent - the fact that Leave made several big lies in order just to get people to vote for them, the fact that big efforts were taken by the press to deliberately misinform the voters as to the nature of the EU is irrelevant because "they won" and that's all that counts.

If it was truly a representation of democracy then the voting public should have been presented with the honest facts, not misled, not given false promises.

But it's not a democracy, it's just viewed as a game to get people to put a cross in the box you want, no matter what.

Not from UK, but what is the point of such a non-binding referendum? Was Sottish ref also non-binding?

I don't believe, strictly speaking, either is/was binding. Basically a referendum is just an official opinion poll. But generally in a democratic society, if the population votes for something parliament will go ahead and enact it. I think that the law that allowed the Scottish IndyRef may have stated that it would go ahead if the vote was for Indy but I'm not too sure. I'm fairly sure that in the Brexit case as no new law had to be put on the books to call it, that this is purely advisory. But I'm not certain on this whole issue. It would be rather odd for something to go to referendum and then Parliament to go against that. I think perhaps it could be done but I'd also think that could be career suicide.

If invoking Article 50 requires an act of parliament, we could see MPs trying to block it. The SNP have the least (possibly - blocking kills their Indy plans so it depends what would be their true aim) to lose by trying to block, but 55 MPs isn't enough. It'd take, at the very least, a number of Tory MPs to rebel and that's assuming pretty much all of everyone non-Tory goes against it. I can't see many MPs being willing to block if their constituency voted in favour. Unless it was to somehow become clear the vote was a "mistake"

That's very messy, but I never thought about it. I always assumed that if it is binding it skips parliament, but on the other hand parliament is making law and MPs can vote as they wish. :s

Reading up and watching footage from the EU Parliament discussion of Brexit, Nigel Farage seems to be doing his best to antagonize the whole EU bunch. It's understandably a charged-up environment, but one would assume someone representing a country at such a critical juncture would not act like a common playground prick. Some of his gems:

Quote:

"Isn't it funny? When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign go get Britain out of the European Union, you all laughed at me. Well, I have to say, you're not laughing now, are you?"

Quote:

"Let's cut between us a sensible, tariff-free deal, and thereafter, recognize that the United Kingdom will be your friend -- that we will trade with you, we will cooperate with you, we will be your best friends in the world," he said. "But do it sensibly and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future." He said he also predicted that the UK would "not be the last member state to leave the European Union."

Quote:

"I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives or worked in business or worked in trade or indeed ever created a job."

Not from UK, but what is the point of such a non-binding referendum? Was Sottish ref also non-binding?

I don't believe, strictly speaking, either is/was binding. Basically a referendum is just an official opinion poll. But generally in a democratic society, if the population votes for something parliament will go ahead and enact it. I think that the law that allowed the Scottish IndyRef may have stated that it would go ahead if the vote was for Indy but I'm not too sure. I'm fairly sure that in the Brexit case as no new law had to be put on the books to call it, that this is purely advisory. But I'm not certain on this whole issue. It would be rather odd for something to go to referendum and then Parliament to go against that. I think perhaps it could be done but I'd also think that could be career suicide.

If invoking Article 50 requires an act of parliament, we could see MPs trying to block it. The SNP have the least (possibly - blocking kills their Indy plans so it depends what would be their true aim) to lose by trying to block, but 55 MPs isn't enough. It'd take, at the very least, a number of Tory MPs to rebel and that's assuming pretty much all of everyone non-Tory goes against it. I can't see many MPs being willing to block if their constituency voted in favour. Unless it was to somehow become clear the vote was a "mistake"

That's very messy, but I never thought about it. I always assumed that if it is binding it skips parliament, but on the other hand parliament is making law and MPs can vote as they wish. :s

Can not find the quote now but "*someone*" claimed 350 MP's were hard pro EU, and a hundred or so soft Pro EU.(his words). There are 650 MP's in total so it is possible.

*(Sorry thats all I recall but was a political commentator in a good press)*

Reading up and watching footage from the EU Parliament discussion of Brexit, Nigel Farage seems to be doing his best to antagonize the whole EU bunch. It's understandably a charged-up environment, but one would assume someone representing a country at such a critical juncture would not act like a common playground prick. Some of his gems:

Quote:

"Isn't it funny? When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign go get Britain out of the European Union, you all laughed at me. Well, I have to say, you're not laughing now, are you?"

Quote:

"Let's cut between us a sensible, tariff-free deal, and thereafter, recognize that the United Kingdom will be your friend -- that we will trade with you, we will cooperate with you, we will be your best friends in the world," he said. "But do it sensibly and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future." He said he also predicted that the UK would "not be the last member state to leave the European Union."

Quote:

"I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives or worked in business or worked in trade or indeed ever created a job."

The grief that Farage has had to put up with over the years I'm surprised he didn't say much worse. Yes in an ideal world he would have taken the moral high-ground, but I think it's understandable. Remember for all his 'fame' he doesn't really have any great deal of power, this was his moment and I think it would take a person of impeccable character to address that room without metaphorically giving them the finger. Besides, Mr Junkers is hardly setting the bar very high, but then he's probably too busy plotting the EU's annexation of Switzerland to act with a sense of decorum.

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

Reading up and watching footage from the EU Parliament discussion of Brexit, Nigel Farage seems to be doing his best to antagonize the whole EU bunch. It's understandably a charged-up environment, but one would assume someone representing a country at such a critical juncture would not act like a common playground prick. Some of his gems:

Quote:

"Isn't it funny? When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign go get Britain out of the European Union, you all laughed at me. Well, I have to say, you're not laughing now, are you?"

Quote:

"Let's cut between us a sensible, tariff-free deal, and thereafter, recognize that the United Kingdom will be your friend -- that we will trade with you, we will cooperate with you, we will be your best friends in the world," he said. "But do it sensibly and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future." He said he also predicted that the UK would "not be the last member state to leave the European Union."

Quote:

"I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives or worked in business or worked in trade or indeed ever created a job."

The grief that Farage has had to put up with over the years I'm surprised he didn't say much worse. Yes in an ideal world he would have taken the moral high-ground, but I think it's understandable. Remember for all his 'fame' he doesn't really have any great deal of power, this was his moment and I think it would take a person of impeccable character to address that room without metaphorically giving them the finger. Besides, Mr Junkers is hardly setting the bar very high, but then he's probably too busy plotting the EU's annexation of Switzerland to act with a sense of decorum.

As though Farage has any claim to a moral high ground

The man is a collosal c***. So is Junker, and I think that was reflected in the behaviour of both of them today. Childish and petty, at a time when it would be in the best interests of the country to maintain a reasonably courteous relationship with the EU, all Farage is interested in is making an ar$e of himself (and me, and you too, as he is supposedly there to represent us as citizens of Britain).

I wouldn't find it hard to believe they're all the same kind of moron and Farage may even be speaking the truth, but giving the proverbial finger to someone you're trying to cut a deal with isn't exactly smart.

Farage may or may not matter in the larger scheme of things, but he seems exactly the sort of leadership and representation Britain doesn't need right now.

Years and generations later, nobody will care who got the last jibe in at the EU Parliament, but his antics can cause serious friction in any forthcoming negotiations.

Not from UK, but what is the point of such a non-binding referendum? Was Sottish ref also non-binding?

I don't believe, strictly speaking, either is/was binding. Basically a referendum is just an official opinion poll. But generally in a democratic society, if the population votes for something parliament will go ahead and enact it. I think that the law that allowed the Scottish IndyRef may have stated that it would go ahead if the vote was for Indy but I'm not too sure. I'm fairly sure that in the Brexit case as no new law had to be put on the books to call it, that this is purely advisory. But I'm not certain on this whole issue. It would be rather odd for something to go to referendum and then Parliament to go against that. I think perhaps it could be done but I'd also think that could be career suicide.

If invoking Article 50 requires an act of parliament, we could see MPs trying to block it. The SNP have the least (possibly - blocking kills their Indy plans so it depends what would be their true aim) to lose by trying to block, but 55 MPs isn't enough. It'd take, at the very least, a number of Tory MPs to rebel and that's assuming pretty much all of everyone non-Tory goes against it. I can't see many MPs being willing to block if their constituency voted in favour. Unless it was to somehow become clear the vote was a "mistake"

That's very messy, but I never thought about it. I always assumed that if it is binding it skips parliament, but on the other hand parliament is making law and MPs can vote as they wish. :s

Brexit is a near certainty now.

The situation is like this.

The EU wants Britain to invoke Article 50 ASAP. Negotiations will not commence till it is invoked.

Britain wants a free trade deal on their terms. The sticking point is immigration-related. EU is firm that this is non-negotiable.

Basically, nothing moves till Article 50 is invoked.

There are sources saying the government may hold a 2nd referendum, not on Brexit, but on accepting EU's trade terms. If the result is a 'no', Britain will then invoke Article 50, exiting the EU without a trade deal. If it's a 'yes', Britain will still exit the EU, accepting EU's trade terms.

A 2nd referendum on Brexit is highly unlikely. I know there's the argument that some folks were lied to but fact is, there was ample time for people to decide if they were being lied to or not. There were months of campaigning from both sides. Each side can always claim the other is lying and it just goes on and on.

IMO, Cameron should be responsible enough to finish what he started. All talk is cheap now. For the sake of everyone, invoke Article 50 and negotiate the trade deal with the EU. As the EU's stand is clear, he may want to hold a 2nd referendum on this.

A 2nd referendum on Brexit is highly unlikely. I know there's the argument that some folks were lied to but fact is, there was ample time for people to decide if they were being lied to or not. There were months of campaigning from both sides. Each side can always claim the other is lying and it just goes on and on.

The irony is that now, less than even a week after the referendum, the majority of the UK population might well be against the exit, after they have smelled the Brexit coffee. As well as so even the bigger majority of the Parliament than it was before. But hey, that's it, the exit will be... that's the democracy.

And that exposes the pitfall of a democracy. That what is its biggest strength, the popular vote, becomes its biggest weakness at the same time. There are no wrong or right paths/decisions to be taken, but all are assumed to be the right ones by de-fault of the popular vote that can swing either way as per as the given circumstances. And thus, voting for one of the songs in a song contest finale and voting for the country's staying or exiting the EU becomes the same thing in principle: the popularity contest. Though, the former one is but for the sake of entertainment.

And I wonder. If the majority of the Parliament, the Government and the PM... all have the understanding that the exit would be rather a wrong path for the country. They are the democratically elected leaders that to lead the country in the best direction, after all. But they all get mesmerized by those less than 4% in the advisory popular vote. If the future after the exit indeed confirms that the decision to leave was the wrong one, are they going to put the blame/responsibility on the people of the UK that voted that way?

As a non-British EU citizen I have this question: in the debate ahead of the referendum, have the British public been made believe that the UK could broker an exit deal that gives them access to the internal free market, but without abiding the legislative body of the EU and without opening its own borders to the EU?

If so, do you think that was simple naivety or deliberate deceitfulness?

The man is a collosal c***. So is Junker, and I think that was reflected in the behaviour of both of them today. Childish and petty, at a time when it would be in the best interests of the country to maintain a reasonably courteous relationship with the EU, all Farage is interested in is making an ar$e of himself (and me, and you too, as he is supposedly there to represent us as citizens of Britain).

I see a lot of friction in the EU between (not least) Merkel and Junker. Merkel is pragmatic and Germany have the most to lose, she needs to keep the UK on side and trading with Germany. Junker is just an empire builder who breeds resentment from everyone seemingly...

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

As a non-British EU citizen I have this question: in the debate ahead of the referendum, have the British public been made believe that the UK could broker an exit deal that gives them access to the internal free market, but without abiding the legislative body of the EU and without opening its own borders to the EU?

If so, do you think that was simple naivety or deliberate deceitfulness?

Deliberate deceitfulness, without a single doubt.

I don't recall it being specifically stated that we'll get all the pros without the perceived cons, but the key arguments for Leave were:

1. We send £350m a week to the EU, we should spend that on our NHS. The £350m was a known lie and it was never going to be assigned anywhere else. 2. Immigration. Take back control of our borders. This gave the anti-immigration mob something to hang on to, and completely ignored that any beneficial trade deal would require freedom of movement to continue. 3. Stupid EU Regulation, sticking their noses in with stupid rules. Oblivious to the fact that all legislation looks stupid to begin with (any legal type documents seem protracted and stupid with the amount of detail they need to give), many of it was actually UK-driven and if we wanted to continue to export we'd need to continue to abide by most of these regulations anyway.

I don't believe for a second that the people peddling these messages hadn't thought them through. They just made the decision to mislead anyway.

A 2nd referendum on Brexit is highly unlikely. I know there's the argument that some folks were lied to but fact is, there was ample time for people to decide if they were being lied to or not. There were months of campaigning from both sides. Each side can always claim the other is lying and it just goes on and on.

The irony is that now, less than even a week after the referendum, the majority of the UK population might well be against the exit, after they have smelled the Brexit coffee. As well as so even the bigger majority of the Parliament than it was before. But hey, that's it, the exit will be... that's the democracy.

And that exposes the pitfall of a democracy. That what is its biggest strength, the popular vote, becomes its biggest weakness at the same time. There are no wrong or right paths/decisions to be taken, but all are assumed to be the right ones by de-fault of the popular vote that can swing either way as per as the given circumstances. And thus, voting for one of the songs in a song contest finale and voting for the country's staying or exiting the EU becomes the same thing in principle: the popularity contest. Though, the former one is but for the sake of entertainment.

And I wonder. If the majority of the Parliament, the Government and the PM... all have the understanding that the exit would be rather a wrong path for the country. They are the democratically elected leaders that to lead the country in the best direction, after all. But they all get mesmerized by those less than 4% in the advisory popular vote. If the future after the exit indeed confirms that the decision to leave was the wrong one, are they going to put the blame/responsibility on the people of the UK that voted that way?

Frankly, nothing really changes, at least on the economic front, if Britain accepts the EU's trade terms. However, those who voted Leave will feel that they are being lied to.

There goes my point. You can't please everyone. The Remain camp always preferred the EU's terms. If Britain exits with these terms, they would not think they're being lied to. Then the anti-immigration side (Leave camp) will think they're being lied to and everyone thinks they're being lied to.

See my point? That's why there's little reason for anyone to think about lies at the moment. Triggering the exit clause is most important and I can see why the EU can't wait to do it.

As a non-British EU citizen I have this question: in the debate ahead of the referendum, have the British public been made believe that the UK could broker an exit deal that gives them access to the internal free market, but without abiding the legislative body of the EU and without opening its own borders to the EU?

If so, do you think that was simple naivety or deliberate deceitfulness?

A serious amount of Brexit voters were conned. They said as much in all manner of interviews since the vote.

It would appear that a lot of people are simply expecting the leave vote to leave the country in the follow manner.

1. NO immigrants, or at least, only highly skilled ones with jobs to come with.

2. 300 plus million extra a week sloshing around in the countries bank account that can be given to good causes, the majority of which will go to the NHS.

3. Trade deals will be quickly broken with ALL other EU countries so that we not only keep existing trade, but gain even more from it.

It's been one big con imo.

The fact that Farage spent more time yesterday grinning like a 6 year old that has just one 'pass the parcel' at their own birthday party, than actually having decent discussions with the people he thinks will still work with us, summed it all up very nicely for me really.

What really annoys me is the amount of people saying that those that voted 'In' should accept the defeat and get on with it. If I felt that the vote was a true reflection of what is going to happen now we've voted out, I would indeed accept it.

The fact that I believe that the majority of the campaign was a pack of lies, I can't accept the vote was truly democratic. That's why so many of us are still annoyed and fighting this.

As a non-British EU citizen I have this question: in the debate ahead of the referendum, have the British public been made believe that the UK could broker an exit deal that gives them access to the internal free market, but without abiding the legislative body of the EU and without opening its own borders to the EU?

If so, do you think that was simple naivety or deliberate deceitfulness?

Deliberate deceitfulness, without a single doubt.

I don't recall it being specifically stated that we'll get all the pros without the perceived cons, but the key arguments for Leave were:

1. We send £350m a week to the EU, we should spend that on our NHS. The £350m was a known lie and it was never going to be assigned anywhere else. 2. Immigration. Take back control of our borders. This gave the anti-immigration mob something to hang on to, and completely ignored that any beneficial trade deal would require freedom of movement to continue. 3. Stupid EU Regulation, sticking their noses in with stupid rules. Oblivious to the fact that all legislation looks stupid to begin with (any legal type documents seem protracted and stupid with the amount of detail they need to give), many of it was actually UK-driven and if we wanted to continue to export we'd need to continue to abide by most of these regulations anyway.

I don't believe for a second that the people peddling these messages hadn't thought them through. They just made the decision to mislead anyway.

Asphalt_World wrote:

TypingChicane wrote:

As a non-British EU citizen I have this question: in the debate ahead of the referendum, have the British public been made believe that the UK could broker an exit deal that gives them access to the internal free market, but without abiding the legislative body of the EU and without opening its own borders to the EU?

If so, do you think that was simple naivety or deliberate deceitfulness?

A serious amount of Brexit voters were conned. They said as much in all manner of interviews since the vote.

It would appear that a lot of people are simply expecting the leave vote to leave the country in the follow manner.

1. NO immigrants, or at least, only highly skilled ones with jobs to come with.

2. 300 plus million extra a week sloshing around in the countries bank account that can be given to good causes, the majority of which will go to the NHS.

3. Trade deals will be quickly broken with ALL other EU countries so that we not only keep existing trade, but gain even more from it.

It's been one big con imo.

The fact that Farage spent more time yesterday grinning like a 6 year old that has just one 'pass the parcel' at their own birthday party, than actually having decent discussions with the people he thinks will still work with us, summed it all up very nicely for me really.

As you two seem to largely agree on the three key arguments that were made in favour of brexit, here's my take on these (for what it's worth):

1. Money spent: It annoys me how politicians and the media (not just in the UK) try to express the value of EU membership as a single number, as net benefit or net tribute. I’m sure that developments in the next months before Article 50 can be triggered, will make people more aware of the wider economic implications: companies and investment leaving the UK, the danger of unemployment going up, life getting more expensive, etc. By the time the UK is ready to invoke Article 50, the majority public opinion may have swung the other way. (Again, just imo, fwiw.) Will that be too late to reconsider?

2. Immigration: I can see that having more control over the number (and skill sets) of legal immigrants would be an attractive proposition to many. Apart from the obvious downsides (such as no more easy British emigration to other EU countries), I also believe that illegal immigration will go up if you're outside the EU, both from EU countries (obviously, because they were legal before) and from outside the EU (because there will be less cooperation and coordination with European countries to make agreements and effectively block the routes to the UK). And this rise of illegal immigration could turn out to be a bigger problem than EU migration ever was, because these immigrants are usually the poorest, willing to work for below minimum wages with no or difficult access to housing, health care, education etc., worsening their problems. And they won't be paying your taxes. Has this been a part of the debate too?

3. Trade and regulations: It's clear that the tactic of domestic political leaders to blame the EU for all bad bureaucracy and seemingly unreasonable rules has backfired spectacularly now. This is not unique to the UK. The UK just happens to be the first to hold a leave-referendum in this era. I must say, I find the idea that the UK could keep all economic benefits of the internal market without sticking to the rules quite bizarre. As Merkel said yesterday: there has to be a clear difference between being a EU member and being outside the EU. What do political leaders and opinion makers in the UK make of this?

Personally, I'm sad to see the UK go. It seems the original purpose of European collaboration, which was to work out differences through dialogue instead of letting tensions proliferate that has resulted in centuries of European wars, is completely out of sight now. Within the EU, the UK is (was) a strong counterpart to the German-French power composition that will be sorely missed.

If Scotland get their second referendum on independence (or declare themselves independent), I think they will have to apply for EU membership just like any other country. But I’m sure they would get it within a relative short period of time.

If Scotland get their second referendum on independence (or declare themselves independent), I think they will have to apply for EU membership just like any other country. But I’m sure they would get it within a relative short period of time.

I suppose, that is why Nicola Sturgeon is in Brussels now, to get some guarantees. The major problem with the first referendum was that by going independent, Scotland would be out of UK but also outside of EU due to the eventual veto vote from Spain. Spain's problem is Basque that would want to emulate Scotland's path, and by closing the door to EU such would be discouraged. But the situation now is very much different due to the UK exiting EU.

As a non-British EU citizen I have this question: in the debate ahead of the referendum, have the British public been made believe that the UK could broker an exit deal that gives them access to the internal free market, but without abiding the legislative body of the EU and without opening its own borders to the EU?

If so, do you think that was simple naivety or deliberate deceitfulness?

Deliberate deceitfulness, without a single doubt.

I don't recall it being specifically stated that we'll get all the pros without the perceived cons, but the key arguments for Leave were:

1. We send £350m a week to the EU, we should spend that on our NHS. The £350m was a known lie and it was never going to be assigned anywhere else. 2. Immigration. Take back control of our borders. This gave the anti-immigration mob something to hang on to, and completely ignored that any beneficial trade deal would require freedom of movement to continue. 3. Stupid EU Regulation, sticking their noses in with stupid rules. Oblivious to the fact that all legislation looks stupid to begin with (any legal type documents seem protracted and stupid with the amount of detail they need to give), many of it was actually UK-driven and if we wanted to continue to export we'd need to continue to abide by most of these regulations anyway.

I don't believe for a second that the people peddling these messages hadn't thought them through. They just made the decision to mislead anyway.

Asphalt_World wrote:

TypingChicane wrote:

As a non-British EU citizen I have this question: in the debate ahead of the referendum, have the British public been made believe that the UK could broker an exit deal that gives them access to the internal free market, but without abiding the legislative body of the EU and without opening its own borders to the EU?

If so, do you think that was simple naivety or deliberate deceitfulness?

A serious amount of Brexit voters were conned. They said as much in all manner of interviews since the vote.

It would appear that a lot of people are simply expecting the leave vote to leave the country in the follow manner.

1. NO immigrants, or at least, only highly skilled ones with jobs to come with.

2. 300 plus million extra a week sloshing around in the countries bank account that can be given to good causes, the majority of which will go to the NHS.

3. Trade deals will be quickly broken with ALL other EU countries so that we not only keep existing trade, but gain even more from it.

It's been one big con imo.

The fact that Farage spent more time yesterday grinning like a 6 year old that has just one 'pass the parcel' at their own birthday party, than actually having decent discussions with the people he thinks will still work with us, summed it all up very nicely for me really.

Will that be too late to reconsider?.......

***Answering a very specific bit of your post, hence removed the other points***

One thing that works in UK's favor and that they can (and honestly should) use to reconsider their stand carefully is there's a very specific, unambiguous point-of-no-return in this whole fiasco, that being the invoking of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. As long as they don't do that in haste, there's plenty of time to objectively consider the UK's best interests, objectively being the keyword as the whole situation till now seems to be driven majorly (if not entirely) by rhetoric.

It's pretty obvious that the whole thing hasn't been thought through by either side and even though much damage has already been done since the referendum, they still haven't gone past the point of no return, technically, and nobody in & including the EU can force them to.

If Scotland get their second referendum on independence (or declare themselves independent), I think they will have to apply for EU membership just like any other country. But I’m sure they would get it within a relative short period of time.

I suppose, that is why Nicola Sturgeon is in Brussels now, to get some guarantees. The major problem with the first referendum was that by going independent, Scotland would be out of UK but also outside of EU due to the eventual veto vote from Spain. Spain's problem is Basque that would want to emulate Scotland's path, and by closing the door to EU such would be discouraged. But the situation now is very much different due to the UK exiting EU.

Nope, Spanish problem is Catalonia. While some Basque are deeply nationalistic from a cultural point of view, they have a favorable economic arrangement inside Spain (they are virtually economically independent, while being inside the UE thanks to the Spanish umbrella) which works very well for them. In fact, the catalan problem would be solved if the same status was granted to them, but that would be seen as unfair by the rest of Spain.

You are right that Spanish Government would probably be against the EU supporting Scottish independence. That said, we will have a new Government right now and one of their main problem is the Catalan question, I have the feeling that it's going to be some kind of arrangement, probably in the direction of the Basque solution, since both parties have reach a dead end which does not favor anyone.

(From a basque Spaniard who has lived in Catalonia and speaks fluent catalan)

As a non-British EU citizen I have this question: in the debate ahead of the referendum, have the British public been made believe that the UK could broker an exit deal that gives them access to the internal free market, but without abiding the legislative body of the EU and without opening its own borders to the EU?

If so, do you think that was simple naivety or deliberate deceitfulness?

You can not do it. It is one of the pillars of the EU or Freedoms. There is no way around it.

Also, much of what people seemed to want out of, is not even EU anyway, it is ECHR.

One thing that works in UK's favor and that they can (and honestly should) use to reconsider their stand carefully is there's a very specific, unambiguous point-of-no-return in this whole fiasco, that being the invoking of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. As long as they don't do that in haste, there's plenty of time to objectively consider the UK's best interests, objectively being the keyword as the whole situation till now seems to be driven majorly (if not entirely) by rhetoric.

It's pretty obvious that the whole thing hasn't been thought through by either side and even though much damage has already been done since the referendum, they still haven't gone past the point of no return, technically, and nobody in & including the EU can force them to.

Still all in their own hands if they can all act sensibly about it.

Although it's the UK only that can push the button (invoking Art. 50), the EU will continue to push for a decision. Other countries will not be happy to allow the UK to sit at every negotiating table while they are pondering to leave. The UK will feel this pressure too, as evidenced by Hill's resignation as EU commissioner shortly after the vote.

Moreover, a U-turn from the UK government and/or parliament would surely anger and further alienate the people who voted for brexit, would it not? Aside from the economic cost, how high would the costs be in terms of loss of trust and legitimacy of the British political system as a representation of the people? On a more general note, I think it's clear that esp. in Europe and the USA, there are large parts of the population who feel deprived and aggrieved by the current state of their (mostly economic) affairs. They will blame their governments, they will blame all politicians alike or they will blame outsiders (be it the EU, be it foreigners, or whoever). For the UK, I don't think leaving the EU will solve this problem, even though many older people may have a nostalgic desire to return to how it used to be (or how they remember it). On the other hand, ignoring the voice of the aggrieved is not likely to accomplish anything constructive either.

As a non-British EU citizen I have this question: in the debate ahead of the referendum, have the British public been made believe that the UK could broker an exit deal that gives them access to the internal free market, but without abiding the legislative body of the EU and without opening its own borders to the EU?

If so, do you think that was simple naivety or deliberate deceitfulness?

You can not do it. It is one of the pillars of the EU or Freedoms. There is no way around it.

Also, much of what people seemed to want out of, is not even EU anyway, it is ECHR.

What strikes me is this kind of idea that the exiting GB would be getting the better deal with EU than the member states of that same EU have gotten. In other words, the benefit of the access to the big single market but without paying for the costs of it such as the free movement of people and goods and the membership fee. Getting rewarded for showing up the middle finger to the Union and causing all this turmoil...? Somehow, I do not see it happening.

As a non-British EU citizen I have this question: in the debate ahead of the referendum, have the British public been made believe that the UK could broker an exit deal that gives them access to the internal free market, but without abiding the legislative body of the EU and without opening its own borders to the EU?

If so, do you think that was simple naivety or deliberate deceitfulness?

You can not do it. It is one of the pillars of the EU or Freedoms. There is no way around it.

Also, much of what people seemed to want out of, is not even EU anyway, it is ECHR.

What strikes me is this kind of idea that the exiting GB would be getting the better deal with EU than the member states of that same EU have gotten. In other words, the benefit of the access to the big single market but without paying for the costs of it such as the free movement of people and goods and the membership fee. Getting rewarded for showing up the middle finger to the Union and causing all this turmoil...? Somehow, I do not see it happening.

It is partly explained here, but it is quite old and parts seem to have been updated in isolation, so do not take it to tha bank as is.

the customs unionthe establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal marketmonetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the eurothe conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policycommon commercial policyconclusion of certain international agreements

One thing that works in UK's favor and that they can (and honestly should) use to reconsider their stand carefully is there's a very specific, unambiguous point-of-no-return in this whole fiasco, that being the invoking of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. As long as they don't do that in haste, there's plenty of time to objectively consider the UK's best interests, objectively being the keyword as the whole situation till now seems to be driven majorly (if not entirely) by rhetoric.

It's pretty obvious that the whole thing hasn't been thought through by either side and even though much damage has already been done since the referendum, they still haven't gone past the point of no return, technically, and nobody in & including the EU can force them to.

Still all in their own hands if they can all act sensibly about it.

Although it's the UK only that can push the button (invoking Art. 50), the EU will continue to push for a decision. Other countries will not be happy to allow the UK to sit at every negotiating table while they are pondering to leave. The UK will feel this pressure too, as evidenced by Hill's resignation as EU commissioner shortly after the vote.

Moreover, a U-turn from the UK government and/or parliament would surely anger and further alienate the people who voted for brexit, would it not? Aside from the economic cost, how high would the costs be in terms of loss of trust and legitimacy of the British political system as a representation of the people? On a more general note, I think it's clear that esp. in Europe and the USA, there are large parts of the population who feel deprived and aggrieved by the current state of their (mostly economic) affairs. They will blame their governments, they will blame all politicians alike or they will blame outsiders (be it the EU, be it foreigners, or whoever). For the UK, I don't think leaving the EU will solve this problem, even though many older people may have a nostalgic desire to return to how it used to be (or how they remember it). On the other hand, ignoring the voice of the aggrieved is not likely to accomplish anything constructive either.

Of course there's no 'lets pretend the referendum didn't happen' or 'lets ignore it because it was only advisory' option. They technically could, but it won't go down well like you say.

The best approach to take would be to actually do something politicians are averse to doing, i.e. present facts to the general population; bare, complete, undiluted facts. Involve non-political people who actually have some credibility to do it if needed. This should ideally have been done before the referendum, but that's no excuse to go through with an ill-conceived catastrophe.

The Article 50 angle gives UK leverage to now actually take the facts to the public and have a meaningful conversation before doing anything else.

More to consider. Apparently, the PM is not empowered to action Art 50, it must come from parliament. Am I right in believing more MP's are not in favour of exit than are? If so, it is not going to get through.

BTW, there is a brilliant vid here, based on the Monty Python. His final response had me in stitches.

The former England captain's advice to fans is to "stay home, watch it on TV... don't even risk it."

As recent events in UK proves that no country is perfect, but BBC clearly wanted to attach "racist" label to Poland, while UK in fact isn't much different. Is BBC advising foreigners to stay away from UK because of some isolated incidents?

I think one thing that swayed me to leave was the simple fact that I did not believe that the EU can be 'reformed from inside' as the remain camp kept telling us. The EU is power hungry, and money hungry too. I can't see that changing without other countries holding their own referendums and threatening to leave. Also, I think if we had voted to remain, the EU would take that as tacit approval, and I didn't want to wait another 40 years to vote leave. This is why I could not vote to remain.

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

I think one thing that swayed me to leave was the simple fact that I did not believe that the EU can be 'reformed from inside' as the remain camp kept telling us. The EU is power hungry, and money hungry too. I can't see that changing without other countries holding their own referendums and threatening to leave. Also, I think if we had voted to remain, the EU would take that as tacit approval, and I didn't want to wait another 40 years to vote leave. This is why I could not vote to remain.

Do you know any political institution which is not power hungry or money hungry? Maybe I haven't paid too much attention to it, but it seems to me that what triggered the referendum was a quest for power inside the tory party, in the first place.

I think one thing that swayed me to leave was the simple fact that I did not believe that the EU can be 'reformed from inside' as the remain camp kept telling us. The EU is power hungry, and money hungry too. I can't see that changing without other countries holding their own referendums and threatening to leave. Also, I think if we had voted to remain, the EU would take that as tacit approval, and I didn't want to wait another 40 years to vote leave. This is why I could not vote to remain.

I have to ask, before voting, were you happy with the plans detailed by the Brexit campaigners for how the country will leave the EU and the long term changes to the UK should we leave?

If you were, fair play, however, if like the rest of us you had no idea, and indeed still have no idea post the referendum how this will happen, then why the heck could you vote for something that you, nor anyone has a plan for?

Talking about saving money and stopping immigrants was the big thing, yet none of this has been shown to have even a hint of a guarantee.

The fact that more people come to our country from none EU countries than they do EU countries says it all really. Barking up the wrong tree comes to mind for those that spearheaded the campaign for leave.

I think one thing that swayed me to leave was the simple fact that I did not believe that the EU can be 'reformed from inside' as the remain camp kept telling us. The EU is power hungry, and money hungry too. I can't see that changing without other countries holding their own referendums and threatening to leave. Also, I think if we had voted to remain, the EU would take that as tacit approval, and I didn't want to wait another 40 years to vote leave. This is why I could not vote to remain.

I have to ask, before voting, were you happy with the plans detailed by the Brexit campaigners for how the country will leave the EU and the long term changes to the UK should we leave?

If you were, fair play, however, if like the rest of us you had no idea, and indeed still have no idea post the referendum how this will happen, then why the heck could you vote for something that you, nor anyone has a plan for?

Talking about saving money and stopping immigrants was the big thing, yet none of this has been shown to have even a hint of a guarantee.

The fact that more people come to our country from none EU countries than they do EU countries says it all really. Barking up the wrong tree comes to mind for those that spearheaded the campaign for leave.

Also, most of the things people seemed to vote "against" are not even in the control of the EU (ECHR, WTO, etc)